Simanowski Text Machines discusses digital literature by applying various theory (post-structuralist, postmodernists, structuralism, deconstruction and reader response theory). He focuses on the the “the death of the author” and its meaning for digital literature. "Replacement of the author by text generators” (90) is in part an area of concern. Simanowski questions the meaning of “a text generated by an author for whom meaning has no meaning” (90). He argues that refusing to humanize the computer means an entire set of differences. He contends that the “internal problem of this genre of digital literature is its poetics of technology, which replaces a language juggler with a crafter of code” (91). In hypertext the this author suggest that "for the programmer the artwork is not the text but rather the text machine” (91).Genre’s of digital literature include hypertext, authorship, automated text (the oldest) and Simanowski examines each with a close theoretical lens.
Computer -Generated Text
Simanowski argues against Foucault “the author’s loss of sovereignty over her text is mitigaed by the loss of control over the text’s caombinaorics: the issues of ownership and power are reconnected to interpersonal oppostion” (93). He contends that "hypertext theorist did not support discourse theory but rather betrayed it” (93). The shift of power in the authorization process of the reader liberates the audience. He does argue that the theorist “notion of death” is misuderstood and misintrepretated because the author writing the “hypertext is not dead or powerless and nor does the reader who configures the text bear the same relation to writing as the author” (93).
Reader and Writers
“Although the author is not dead, it is perhaps more appropriate to announce the death of the reader”(114).
Commentary
Simanowski grounds this piece with heavy references to philosophic theorist. He argues by using past and present research whether or not the author is lost in the new digital literature era. Poetry as we know it my be lacking what is intended because digital literature does not offer the inflecation necessary to fully gather the an appropiated understand of the prose. “As far as computer poetry is concerned, there really is warfare against convention” (104). He reference Hayles when she questions “poetic lines generated by a machine for which words have no meaning” (99). He then answers with one dismisses, one admits, one sees, one establishes (99).
Simanowski writes that because readers of digital literature are aware of what they are reading there are affordances made based on that ideology. It is my contention that a text always has an author in arena. Someone is always in the backdoor creating even in the computer-generated, hypertext environment. Human authorship of any work is important TO the work.
Discussion Questions
How important is “utterence” in digital literature of poetry? Can a text processor create “utterences” that a essential to how poetry is read? Is the demise of the reader on the rise with the birth of digital literature?
What are the boundaries (if any) between processors, and authors? Are they one in the same? Explain?
CAP-Simanowski-Text Machine
Edit 0 5…Summary
Simanowski Text Machines discusses digital literature by applying various theory (post-structuralist, postmodernists, structuralism, deconstruction and reader response theory). He focuses on the the “the death of the author” and its meaning for digital literature. "Replacement of the author by text generators” (90) is in part an area of concern. Simanowski questions the meaning of “a text generated by an author for whom meaning has no meaning” (90). He argues that refusing to humanize the computer means an entire set of differences. He contends that the “internal problem of this genre of digital literature is its poetics of technology, which replaces a language juggler with a crafter of code” (91). In hypertext the this author suggest that "for the programmer the artwork is not the text but rather the text machine” (91).Genre’s of digital literature include hypertext, authorship, automated text (the oldest) and Simanowski examines each with a close theoretical lens.
Computer -Generated Text
Simanowski argues against Foucault “the author’s loss of sovereignty over her text is mitigaed by the loss of control over the text’s caombinaorics: the issues of ownership and power are reconnected to interpersonal oppostion” (93). He contends that "hypertext theorist did not support discourse theory but rather betrayed it” (93). The shift of power in the authorization process of the reader liberates the audience. He does argue that the theorist “notion of death” is misuderstood and misintrepretated because the author writing the “hypertext is not dead or powerless and nor does the reader who configures the text bear the same relation to writing as the author” (93).
Reader and Writers
“Although the author is not dead, it is perhaps more appropriate to announce the death of the reader”(114).
Commentary
Simanowski grounds this piece with heavy references to philosophic theorist. He argues by using past and present research whether or not the author is lost in the new digital literature era. Poetry as we know it my be lacking what is intended because digital literature does not offer the inflecation necessary to fully gather the an appropiated understand of the prose. “As far as computer poetry is concerned, there really is warfare against convention” (104). He reference Hayles when she questions “poetic lines generated by a machine for which words have no meaning” (99). He then answers with one dismisses, one admits, one sees, one establishes (99).
Simanowski writes that because readers of digital literature are aware of what they are reading there are affordances made based on that ideology. It is my contention that a text always has an author in arena. Someone is always in the backdoor creating even in the computer-generated, hypertext environment. Human authorship of any work is important TO the work.
Discussion Questions